Madras High Court
E. Vedachalam (Died) vs R. Venkatesan on 26 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.2681 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.No. 2681 of 2017
1. E. Vedachalam (died)
2. V.Visalakchi
3. V. Vaishnavi
4. V. Nandagopal
(Appellants 2 to 4 brought on record as LR's of the
deceased Sole Appellant vide order of this Court
dated 26.08.2021) ...Appellants
Vs.
1. R. Venkatesan
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Silingi Building, IV Floor,
No. 134, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. S. Raja
4. S. Ramesh
5. G. Ravichandran ....Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.02.2017 made in
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2681 of 2017
M.C.O.P.No. 4815 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.A.A. Venkatesan
For Respondents : Mr. Bhaskaran for R2
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation
granted by the award dated 04.02.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No. 4815 of 2011 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The deceased was the claimant in M.C.O.P.No. 4815 of 2011 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,III Court of Small Causes, Chennai. During the
pendency of the Appeal, the Claimant died and therefore his Legal Heirs were impleaded
as Appellants 2 to 4 in the Appeal.
3. The Claimant filed M.C.O.P.No. 4815 of 2011 before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal,III Court of Small Causes, Chennai claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred
on 13.06.2011.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2681 of 2017
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the alleged
vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd Respondent-Insurance
Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,98,600/- as compensation to the Claimant.
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the Claimant has
come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and during the
pendency of this Appeal since the Claimant/First Appellant passed away, his Legal Heirs
were brought on record vide order dated 26.08.2021.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants contended that the learned
Tribunal failed to consider the disability certificates Ex.P20 and Ex.P22, issued by
P.W.2 and P.W.3 @ 30% and 40% respectively and fixed the disability of the deceased
claimant at 35% which is very low. He further submitted that the Claims Tribunal
ought to have adopt multiplier method and award the compensation towards loss of
income. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
other heads are also very low and the same needs to be enhanced.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent/Insurance
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2681 of 2017
company contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding liability on the part of 2nd
Respondent/Insurance Company for the reason that the 1st Respondent has already sold
the Tata Ace Van to the 3rd Respondent and thereafter, the 3rd Respondent has sold the
same to the 5th Respondent. But none of the Respondents informed the insurance
company about the name transfer and it is unknown that who is the actual owner of the
Tata Ace van at the time of accident. Therefore, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company
need not be liable to pay the compensation and the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to the Claimant is very high and the same needs to be reduced. The Appellants
have not made out any case for enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal
of the Appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants as well as the learned
counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent/Insurance company and perused the entire
materials on record.
8. Insofar as the disability of the deceased is concerned, though P.W.2 and P.W.3-
Doctors who examined the deceased on different dates with respect to fracture and
midface injury have assessed the disability @30% and 40% respectively, during the
cross examination, P.W.2 and P.W.3 admitted that they have not given the follow up
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2681 of 2017
treatment for the deceased. Therefore, based on the aforesaid statement, the Claims
Tribunal has fixed the disability of the deceased @35% (20% + 15%) and awarded the
compensation at Rs.1,05,000/-. Considering the grievous injuries sustained by the
Claimant and the period of treatment undergone, this Court feels that 40% disability can
be fixed. Hence, by fixing disability @ 40%, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (40 x 3000) is
awarded towards Disability.
9. Insofar as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, P.W.1 deposed
that the deceased was a Manager in Vadivudaiamman Transport and was earning a sum
of Rs.10,000/- per month and since evidence was examined to prove the same, the
Claims Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- as
per the Judgment of this Court reported in, 2015 (2) TN MAC 624 and considering the
fact that the Claimant has taken the treatment for 19 days as inpatient and might not
attended the work for six months has awarded compensation towards Loss of Income
during treatment period i.e, for 109 days at Rs.27,250/-(250x109) of the claimant and
109 days as treatment period.
10. Considering the fact that the Claimant has sustained communited fracture of
lateral, anterior ends of left 3rd, 4th,5th and 6th laternal end of right 2nd,3rd,4th and 5th ribs,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2681 of 2017
taken treatment as an inpatient for 19 days and surgery was done, this Court is inclined
to grant compensation towards Loss of Income for seven months and hence the
compensation towards Loss of Income is enhanced to Rs.52,500/- (7500x7).
11. On scrutinizing the nature of injuries sustained and as the claimant has to seek
help of the attender for carrying on his work, this Court is of the view that the
compensation towards Attender charges may be enhanced and hence the same is
enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Apart from that, the compensation awarded towards Extra
Nourishment, Transport to Hospital and Pain and Sufferings is very meagre and
therefore the same is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.50,000/-
respectively.
12. Taking note of the injuries sustained and nature of treatment undergone and
the difficulties faced by the claimant, this Court feels that compensation needs to be
granted towards Loss of Amenities. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards
Loss of Amenities.
13. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2681 of 2017
reasonable and hence, same are hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S. Description Amount awarded by Amount awarded by Award confirmed or
No Tribunal this Court enhanced or granted
(Rs) (Rs)
1. Loss of income 27,250/- 52,500/- Enhanced
2. Attender charges 4,750/- 25,000/- Enhanced
3. Transport to hospital 10,000/- 15,000/- Enhanced
4. Extra Nourishment 20,000/- 30,000/- Enhanced
5. Damage to Clothing 1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed
6. Medical expenses 1,80,580.64/- 1,80,580.64/- Confirmed
7. Pain and sufferings 40,000/- 50,000/- Enhanced
8. Damages for menal and
physcial shock 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
9. Disability 1,05,000/- 1,20,000/-
(35 x 3000) (35 x 3000) Confirmed
10. Loss of Amenities Nil 15,000/- Granted
TOTAL Rs.3,98,580.64/- Rs.4,99,080.64/- Enhanced
ROUNDED OFF Rs.3,98,600/- Rs.5,00,000/- Enhanced By
Rs.1,01,400/-
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,98,600/- is hereby enhanced to
Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit. The Appellants 2 to 4 are entitled for equal
apportionment. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2681 of 2017
amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No. 4815 of 2011 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,III Court of Small Causes, Chennai. On such deposit
being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the Award amount directly to the Bank
account of the Claimant through RTGS, within a period of two weeks. The
Appellants/Claimants shall pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced
compensation. However, it is made clear that if there is any delay in filing the C.M.A.
and in case of any earlier order by this Court, depriving interest for the period of delay in
question, the interest portion for that period should be excluded for the purpose of
granting interest. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
(arr)/(shk)
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2681 of 2017
To:
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Court of Small Causes,
Chennai
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2681 of 2017
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(arr)/(shk)
C.M.A. No.2681 of 2017
26.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
